. .1 .I . - -. I 13,,un 9.9110911319111911 9. 911951.224 HIE-25- 495 1555959: (35551975 1.15599 551151451513.2515' ?255.5. fa? 5555.32 . 524152.25 95911915) . .- . CLERKOFTHEWOUR .. . II I -. - .. . 51551555955113 . -. . . I .. .. 51:02Harwy EAEHER. 'hy. HIE Reviewed 5:19r5m5 June 13 20,26 - . 55:51'11 1575 'j gm? - 4134?" "5.91? 115995 55:59. 955555559, 55hr: Ilii. 1.555.599.1155 25 59959591 IEian'5rt?I P5955555 15519::er L555 DI. 0555.135155. (315:9. (151595555; 'iorI 599151155: . PETITION TO TRANSFER ii I. I- Ctr: EI: A5915. W55 immed while: using. 5 5595}: 55W it: his 919i: 55555151555? H5.I I . . . 91959111 951199911in defendant?gm?ll?nt. S555 1:559:14 551159595515: 1.5115999 5591195955 in in5It5ilin9I and m9jnt5ini59; - 919-79991. 11191919519 9191' 919919999115;- by 49995 39999 R. 9175559111.- 195 Ewan Cimuit (2555. 55:55:59 Mii. A5555 I555 000. 135 999551 95.555551519945515 129159 First ?55515: a?innad. I312 E-. 25 121 (1374}: - . {the 5f the: 19:15:55: of 21:5 1350:5115 tit-15551315 5555:5113 9519555 55555995 51 the 5:55:55: C5555: 51599551. Ibis i5 . II 99999191151199 51.9595 951355559555 to grant 55555::- 595:: 955555 5559159 thi'5 9:55:19; AP. Rule 111511235 II5 petition . "It: 55I5r9 95in'ihi51 5555'.- The hial 5551195555155 the injured piainiifi'. 51: 55515555951355. 9551i: 51': 5511555, ft: r55555r I-r999599'9ie medical 9x95111159 in 55.: drain: br5tt99t in hi5 5'er 95:95. The Court of 599559 55:" the Firat 1:119:55: 5'5 59955! Wilma: the: hi5! court In at: 595551: 9515159 555515555591 W55 91-5955. 3555555 the 999555155955, the 911555.555: of 9155511: {3555 Appealshair: it: the: contrary I?i? #555559 in 5115!} 5 5555 be Whiter: i5 595155! 55955555 91551155 5551' emancipa'?an. W5 95515995515: for. 55h I 9553555 51' M59199 1115 5555151 1:51:551955555551-1559 5515151 99:55 With 11.15 055551 1599551519 595 5555 and . 555555559531' 52159 515 1559559 - .593 "2155515 5555 which We 55:15 1915551: :5 mmideIrI 5955' this 95225:: It; Whhtii5t' 5:1 tinem51:5i99ieti 95:15:? Iihay. r5?5Ir5r f5: the hiedlcai 9:195:55: resulting Ruth hi5 injury.I . . 999511951: 59155155 51' :55: it: 559555555511 91:19: 555555 the minpr 9:55:55 :5 r555v5r 'the Whablt: 11515551155 5:55:55!- 9515 I15 1555955 55 '9 1115551555915 W55 5195:5155 5555115 r'tllitiiIJ' :5 9511.915 in:- this 999951. 11:5 15551-5 55519555515: the 551955555 5x95n555 W515 inhumd in. 15595599 and June.. 1221. 5:555 was. 5:1 9555155519555 'miIt?'n H5 W55 559959. W55 551 551955955. 511515455 with big 9195151555 5259155151 1-15 W55 95!: 55!? .. 55995559.- H5I bmught this. 555.51: bit. 95:5 5559. 15551555 1151 hit: 1111:1951. ?52151: OI 51555. :53in hit: - 55555551. 5i the: 1:151. and. 5115 dlti' not 511159 1.1999 the 5551551- 11199159 5x959515- 91919555 5595955 1955551195 .. 55955955 11151155 155955559: 15:59 5: 955555: 5915915955. and 95115591: 9515955 W55 $2 .455. 05. :51. 5551655 to 5:555 I 595551 55515955.. 555.151. :5 95155115h 955595! 5595995 In 515 $179. 550 on 15599. The 91 559.1555 hitti- $95. 000. no. 51555 TF1. 49 55555555 the 595551 595m 51551955 115' 55195955595 1115 95559599. mingling! 555555155959555 2151951555 or. 559595 559.555 955.1 Ith5 595' :5 the r555rii'. 515599 5 95551.: 555:5 . - 5559591: 555595: for 5.511959 ht: 55599151595 51151595115. 5555555 5: I.I . . I. - wh'5r5 5 Wife 9512i :55? 1555le 55955555. her [155555595515 net mo5y5r f5: th5m,I althnugh i15- 955:5 h955 95551159152. 1551555151: his 951551.559 15551151 I5: 9:551:55555. 5159155] 5111955955 9' r. I - - - EMMALR. .2d1075r-75: With this: r555r5.5995iianbd5i5ndant 511595th 599551 The 545155515 51? an 11555155595155 minnr :95 55515515 by him. i. (It. 1921 52K, 95559. Burns 9 5-141.- For 5x51111919 in Ed 9 that I 11995115595151.995915 95911555556 176.398 HUGH EIQEEQQLIE 1193313 BTBZ/iwbl 51719018. Scott County $Ichocl District 1 v. Asher, 324 NE 2d I496 tad; Supreme Court 1975-. -GIocoIe Scholar court held theta minor could digaf?rm his purchae'e of an auto, because the Gwalior could not show that it was a I for the minor in Weheitand Fetter Eights hoot} 13; 199, any 523,195 N. 2d 4119 even 1110th a minor- - his age. had left home and :wee employed. and was merited within a use make of making the. contract. and though the creditor had made diligent Inquiry, the creditor could not hold the minor to his contract for an auto. which was not a in the circumstances of the Career However. at 1:01an? law and hi? 5115mm fin"! 192519.53 Bums 531102 being it I2. Uniionn Sales. Act, replaced by i C, 1971 xx-x-x-xpg being Borne ?1941-? 193, 103 Unifom'i (29rnrnerclel Code; . if the minor contracts for necessaries. he must have reasonable price for them. Sound policy lies heh?ir'id this exception to . the protection of the minor from disadvantagemie contracts. for. without the exception? a. minor who has in grave need .- would be denied credit for goods or services. - I I in interpreting the common law rule of contracts for necessaries, courts have held that a miner who Is living at home or 493 being supported Icy his parents Is not liabie on his contract for necessariee See 70. AL. R. 572 (infant?s liability for where he livee with his parents). The reasoning of such cases is that such a child could not be contracting for necee'e'ahes since all necessariee are being provided for his support. (in each. a contract, the creditor cannot recover from . either child or parent. unless he can show that the parent was at that time failing to provide the child with 173.9 .I I NEW (Father not liable for hoard of wife and children when he was ready. willing and able to provide for them at home); IS I board of con who left horns? because of paternal dieelplino. ?since father veiling and sole to furnish a good home and child I. could otherwise force parent to choose between enowlng child. his way at home or. paying his ?499 support abroad: can not I liable, because no one may reach his properly for his support unless creditor shows that parent has no property of his own? I to auction the child and that parent has failed or refused to Igupport him} if the creditor cert prove the need of the child, then (Father not liable for ten months -I .I he may recover from either mild or parent. The twin policies of protecting a child from contracts and at limiting the parent?s dutyto the prmdeion of - .I II strict necessaries at home are not at work in contracts or implied contracts for necessary and reasonable medical sewage. The necessity for such services is seldom disputed. There is no reason to insulate either child or patent from the doctors or hospital?s suit. The child was not tallied into on improvidont 13111311299 nor was the parent denied his right to. chooee' the type of necessary. Since the child received the service and it was a he] is liable. I: The parent also' I: liable because of. his common law and. in some instances Istatutory duty to support and rnIaiInItairi his child SW9 5mg? 1m,- Cirgi, 119991.291 247 ?may. 64: and II. 1971 xx-x-Xx-x, being Bi'ime 5 Burns 5 3-1219 (divorce, in. effect in 1971); 1971 xx?xx-x-x, )ooxx-x?x; and xii-mm being Burris 1044121 10-1402 and 111?1495 (criminal for failure to support: children) ?this parental duly include-ether provision of neceegeiy medical care. When. the child is. injured, the parent elec has a cause of action against the to recover compensation for the coats of such care it?: 19?1, 3421?143. being Burns Petition for transfer to this Court was accepted because of an apparent con?ict' In cases from! the Court of Appeals; in 9932mm? 21119 evacuate Court orange 3 recover for i "expenses actually,r incurred" by the I ?Although the father is liable for necessaries furnished a miner. yet the obligation for such is: also a debt of I I the minor, anti it is not improper to allow him to recover for hie Medical 9.111.195.9an recovery would cut off the right of theiother to recover. . . m; Boerci I[elic. v. Caetetler (1893,1191 App. 3139, 33 989. 3.4 til SI 1197.? We a all we agree with the opinion in the motorist Rwy. Co case. supra, and held here that both parent and child are liable upon suit i by tho doctor or the hospital, and consequently either niev be compensated tier the reoeoneblo value of medical expenses I However parent and child divide their claim for rhedical expenaee, that division is of no consequence to the as I long as he I: not subject to pay twice at the same expenses. if either parent or child cringe suit against the and claims medical expenses which have already been claimed and awardec? In an earlier suit, than the may pleetIiI In anewerthat judgment and no payment pursuant thereto Wt mi, 1915 hi $3391; MI. The anewer should show that the pleadings, evidence and jury instructional indicate that carriages for the earns medical Ieitpensee were awarded in the general damages . - 2:3 PEXEIB 39% WET BIBZKLINB .. {Scott County $?haol District 1 v. Ail-par. 324 NE 2:1495 .. Ind: Suprarna Cuurt 19T5 - Gougta Scholar In tight of our agreament the opinion at the Court of Apneals- in this car-a. we order that such opiniun be not vacated. but [hemmed to stand. - The judgment of the trial court is af?rmed. GIVAN. ARTERBURN and HUNTER. concur. PRENTICE. not pamcipating. Save trees - read court opinions unline on Gnagle Scholar. - - 3m 39w BIBZHINB